Heathrow is a symbol of British decline

On 25 October 2016, the British government gave its backing to a third runway at Heathrow. A decade later, not a single inch of that runway has been laid. 

In the intervening years, Heathrow has fallen behind its international competitors. This July, Istanbul Airport overtook Heathrow as Europe’s busiest — taking a crown Heathrow had held since 1996, save for a brief hiccup during the pandemic. Although the margin was modest, the direction of travel should concern anyone who believes Britain and her airports ought to remain competitive on the world stage. 

Given the protracted expansion debate, Heathrow’s loss of ground should come as little surprise. For decades, plans for a third runway have been mired in a labyrinth of regulatory complexity, environmental objections and planning bureaucracy. 

The cost of that paralysis was laid bare in September, when Heathrow’s bosses informed ministers that these barriers meant a third runway would not open until at least 2039. 

That ought to provoke outrage. Heathrow is a national treasure, like Sir David Beckham, yet our neglect is akin to Beckham’s parents refusing to drive him to training. Potential alone will not save Heathrow. By continuing to dither and delay over expansion, we are hastening its relegation from the top league of international airports. 

Worse still, 2016 was hardly the first time a British government had backed expansion. As far back as 2003, ministers had supported a third runway in principle. By the time ground was broken for Istanbul Airport in June 2014, Britain had already spent more than a decade debating Heathrow’s expansion. Today, Istanbul boasts six runways to Heathrow’s two and occupies an area more than six times larger. In roughly half the time we have spent arguing over a single additional runway, Turkey has built an entirely new global aviation hub. 

In that sense, Heathrow and the UK’s competitive disadvantage is plain to see, and it extends well beyond Turkey. Amsterdam’s Schiphol has six runways; Paris’s Charles de Gaulle and Madrid’s Barajas have four apiece. All are waiting in the shadows to steal Heathrow’s crown. 

The latest voice to offer a solution to this issue has emerged from Istanbul Airport’s chief executive, Selahattin Bilgen. Bilgen, perhaps unsurprisingly, thinks expanding Heathrow is a bad idea. Instead, he favours building a replacement airport, along the lines of the infamous “Boris Island”. 

In fairness, that is the model that has served Istanbul so well. However, it is also one Britain has already rejected. In its landmark 2015 report, the independent Airports Commission  

unanimously concluded that a third runway at Heathrow was the strongest option for expanding airport capacity. 

London already has six main airports, but Heathrow remains the country’s only major international hub. It handles up to 85 million passengers a year and 75 per cent of Britain’s air cargo by value, while directly supporting 80,000 jobs on site. 

Building a replacement airport would mean persuading airlines to move and recreating the transport links and commercial networks that have grown around Heathrow. More fundamentally, it misunderstands how a successful hub airport works. Does anyone seriously imagine that modern Britain would find this straightforward? 

Expanding Heathrow, by contrast, would eventually allow it to handle up to 150 million passengers a year, relieving pressure on its two existing runways, which operate at 99 per cent capacity. 

Further delays would be counterproductive, not least because Heathrow already faces an uphill battle to reclaim its place at the top of Europe’s airport rankings. NATS failures aside, Britain’s decline on the world stage has weakened its standing as a global centre for business and investment. Neither tourism nor geography alone can guarantee Heathrow’s future, and we should not place further obstacles in its path by halting expansion. While there is room to debate the details, an airport that cannot accommodate growth will struggle to compete with those that can. 

There is something profoundly defeatist about suggesting that Heathrow should simply settle for being a reasonably sized airport and leave further ambition to others. After more than two decades to prepare, Heathrow now has an expansion plan that promises to be entirely privately financed, deliver lasting growth and support an additional 100,000 jobs, including vital vocational roles. 

Heathrow expansion will not be another HS2. With 68 per cent of residents around the airport supporting it, it also seems to me a matter largely settled, Prime Minister. 

Heathrow’s present decline is symbolic of a stagnant Britain

Heathrow remains an extraordinary commercial asset, connecting British businesses with customers and bringing visitors and investment into the country. Its flight slots are the most expensive in the world, demonstrating how highly the rest of the world values this asset, even if we refuse to. 

Heathrow’s present decline is symbolic of a stagnant Britain: a Heathrow that cannot expand limits Britain’s economic potential; a Britain that cannot build denies Heathrow the opportunity to grow. If we choose to let Heathrow wither further, we will have rather less cause to complain when businesses follow the passengers elsewhere. Nor can we complain about weak investment while making those willing to invest fight for permission to do so.  

MPs are expected to vote on Heathrow’s third-runway planning framework in the coming months. One can only hope things are finally moving in the right direction for one of the world’s most important airports — and one of the few sources of pride modern Britain has produced.